The following passages are from J. I.
Packer’s book, “God has Spoken,” first published in 1965, with the fifth
edition in 2005.

This century
has brought forth a large litter of new versions, so many indeed that some folk
now feel swamped, and by a natural if irrational reaction are resolved to
trust none of them, but stick to the King James Version of 1611. In fact,
however, all the main modern renderings are very good; no English-speaking
generation was ever better served with vernacular Bibles than ours. They fan
out. At one extreme are paraphrases and ‘dynamic equivalent’ versions, aiming at
a total impact like that of the original on its own first readers. Such versions
cut loose from the word-order and sentence-structure of the original, thus
concealing the terms, and therefore the existence, of many problems of
interpretation, and identify with one current literary culture. Thus, Kenneth
Taylor’s Living Bible reflects American ‘pop’ magazines and paperbacks,
the Good News Version sticks as closely as it can to Basic English, and
J. B. Phillips’ New Testament in Modern English uses the full resources
of twentieth-century English prose. At the other extreme are versions which
as far as possible are word-for-word, clause-for-clause and
sentence-for-sentence; the English Revised Version of 1881, and the
New American Standard Version, go this way, but sacrifice smooth English in
the process. Striking a balance between these extremes are two sober and
steady versions, the New International and the Revised Standard,
and two brilliant but uneven ones, the New English Bible and the
Jerusalem Bible, a Roman Catholic translation. The two former aim at
good plain English, and achieve it; the latter pair are more ‘literary’ in
style, sometimes with odd results. All have the defects of their qualities and
the limitations of their strengths.

So what to do?
No perfect, definitive version of the Bible is possible, any more than a
definitive performance of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony or C sharp minor quartet is
possible; there is more in it waiting to be expressed than any one rendering
can encompass. Both the word-for-word and the ‘dynamic equivalent’ versions are
needed if we are fully to appreciate the meaning and force of the original: the
former safeguards accuracy, the latter deepens understanding. I suggest that
you try, as I do, to get the best of all worlds by having four Bibles at hand---the
King James, with its majestic language and hallowed associations;
a paraphrase; a word-for-word version; and one from the middle---and
regularly comparing them. In any case; however, concentrate on one version
for reading and memorizing. This brings most benefit with least confusion.
(20-21)